JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt.22.12.2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2004 whereby the appeal was dismissed. The said appeal arose from the judgment and decree dt.16.3.2004 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2000 by Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gadchiroli whereby the suit was decreed and the defendants were directed to deliver possession of the suit land bearing Survey No.244, area 0.80 hectors situated at village Rangi, Tq. Dhanora, District Gadchiroli. 2. The suit afore-mentioned was instituted seeking the relief of possession, damages as well as inquiry into mesne profit. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the suit property and also relied upon a map filed along with the plaint. The plaintiff had alleged that there was encroachment made by or on behalf of the defendants and the plaintiff came to know about it in the month of May, 1993 and hence, he objected the act of encroachment by the defendants and also called upon the defendants to remove the encroachment. The grievance of the appellants is that, in the trial Court, though the suit was filed on the basis of title seeking the reliefs of possession, damages and mesne profit, the trial Court did not grant sufficient opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff and it went ahead to record finding in favour of the plaintiff in respect of alleged title to the suit land as also in respect of alleged wrongful possession of the defendants since the month of April, 1993. The appellants have, therefore, contended that failure of justice has occurred and substantial questions of law, as stated in the appeal, arise as it was necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove how the plaintiff secured title to the suit land. It was also necessary to consider as to whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to grant decree against a public trust without joining all the trustees as defendants. Further, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, question as to whether the plaintiff possesses valid and legal title to the suit land cannot be decided merely on the basis of revenue entries as they by themselves do not convey or extinguish title. In this regard, reference is made by the learned Counsel for the appellants to the ruling in the case of Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) through L.Rs. In this regard, reference is made by the learned Counsel for the appellants to the ruling in the case of Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) through L.Rs. and Others .vs. Badribai w/o. Jagannath and another reported in (2003) 2 SCC 464 . My attention is invited to the observations made in para 6 of the ruling that “ That mutation proceedings before the Revenue Authorities are not judicial proceedings in any Court of law and does not decide questions of title to immovable property is a trite position and principle of law. 3. On the other hand, however, the learned Counsel for the respondent (original plaintiff) supported the impugned judgments and orders and has prayed that the instant appeal be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions in the light of the record and proceedings as also the legal position. Right to cross-examine the witness is invaluable right to be exercised by the party to the suit. In a civil suit, the issues are settled after important procedural stages i.e. admission or denial of pleadings, production of documents; the stage of discovery or inspection of documents, admission or denial of facts etc. Thereafter, the suit is fixed for recording of evidence. The trial Judge need to be vigilant to observe the principles of fair play and justice when evidence is led in respect of issues framed by the trial Court. Notwithstanding that the examination-in-chief of a witness is permitted on affidavit to save judicial time where the suit also involves documents which are required to be examined and considered and when parties have relied upon the same, the examination-in-chief by a witness tested by the weapon of cross-examination and explanatory reexamination assumes immense importance and for just decision of the case; if so essential the trial Judge do have necessary power to even re-call the witness for further evidence; cross-examination or re-examination of the witnesses as the case may be. 5. Thus, when it is argued that the opportunity to cross-examine the material witness is denied by the trial Judge and the error is not rectified by the first Appellate Court, my attention has been invited to the order-sheets of the trial Court (rojnama) in the present case indicating that the plaintiff along with his Counsel was present while the defendants were absent. The affidavit of original plaintiff Bhikshuk @ Biskut Sakharam Pasande (PW-1) was marked as Exh.80 and copy thereof was given to other side for his cross-examination. Some documents were also produced which were marked as Exh. Nos.81 to 87. On the adjourned date i.e. 10.3.2004 when the plaintiff was present and his Counsel was absent and the defendants and their Counsel were also marked as absent, the trial Court hastily proceeded further to adjourn the case for judgment and order and thereafter proceeded to decree the suit with costs. Thus, the defendants/appellants herein were denied opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 and also to meet the documents which were produced just on the previous date. It is in the light of these facts that the substantial questions of law framed by this Court on 1.4.2008 need to be considered. The said substantial questions of law were formulated as under: 1) Whether the Courts below could have passed a decree for possession of the entire land when the plaintiff had not sought any declaration that action of Revenue Authorities in reducing area of his ownership was according to him wrong, false and fabricated ? 2) Whether the Courts below fell in error in decreeing the entire suit for possession when particularly according to even plaintiff the area in his possession is reduced by the action of the Revenue Authorities? 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances revealed from the record, I think in larger interest of justice that the substantial questions of law must be answered in favour of the appellants to enable them to have proper and effective opportunity of cross-examining PW-1 in the light of documents produced and relied upon in evidence. It cannot be disputed that the trial Judge in Court below could not have hurriedly proceeded to decree the suit without giving just, fair and proper opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff. It cannot be disputed that the trial Judge in Court below could not have hurriedly proceeded to decree the suit without giving just, fair and proper opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff. There could not have been just and proper adjudication on merits in the absence of essential opportunity to cross-examine a material witness in order to enable the parties before Court to plead their case on merits and to contest the rival claims in accordance with law, it is essential that the proceedings in the present case are remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to give fair opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff in the light of documents produced on record. The trial Court should allow the parties an opportunity to lead evidence as they may desire in the larger interest of justice and after the parties are heard fully on merits in respect of the controversy in the suit, the trial Court shall proceed further to decide the suit in accordance with law. Hence, the instant Second Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dt.22.12.2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2004 and the impugned judgment and decree dt.16.3.2004 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2000 by Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gadchiroli are set aside. Parties shall approach the trial Court on 21.4.2014. The trial Court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. Under the circumstances, no order as to costs.